Appeals court hears challenge to vandalism conviction tied to stolen jail keys and rekeying costs

Defense and prosecution argued before a three-judge panel over whether a vandalism conviction tied to a defendant’s removal of jail keys was supported by law and the evidence, and whether the prosecutor—ommitted reversible misconduct in closing argument.

In the first hour of oral argument, defense counsel Evan Raven told the court the case against Mr. Friedman, the defendant, rested on a strained reading of the vandalism statute. "It is true that Mr. Friedman did commit some vandalism," Raven said, "and it is true that there was various financial harms that resulted from the totality of all of the actions that he did." He urged the court to treat the property at issue narrowly and to require proof of physical alteration or tampering under the statute.

Lacey Wilbur, arguing for the state, said she would "concentrate on sufficiency of the evidence," and pointed to testimony that the detention center—ould no longer be trusted without rekeying and that officials had incurred…